07/28/1980 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. ~n..._ ...._,.._.~.....~ ...._.. .__ '_~_...-""".~''''', II. METROPOLITAN GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION (memo and additional information distributed) ( " Mr. Henry stated that this plan has been adopted by Springfield and council e action is mandated by State law. He introduced Jim Croteau, Planning Depart- ment, to prov i de background i nformat i on. Mr. Croteau noted that the requested action culminates four years of work by the three metropolitan jurisdictions and their elected officials. Public hearings were held by the Planning Commission and elected officials of all three juris- dictions. The Elected Official Coordinating Committee met 14 times over a two-month period. The planning commissions and elected officials were able to reach agreement in all but about four major areas: 1) plan designation, policies, zoning and land use in the vicinity of Mahlon Sweet Field (Eugene) Airport; 2) conversion of River Road/Santa Clara from urbanizable to urban land and provision of key urban services; 3) planning participation, responsibility, and authority within the metropolitan area (jurisdictional boundary and respon- sibility); and 4) plan designation between Awbrey Lane and Enid Station Road, east of Highway 99. Springfield has adopted their plan and will consider adoption on August 4 of the revised plan that is now before the Eugene City Council. Lane County Commissioners will consider the plan on August 5, 1980. There have been seven drafts. Stan Long, City Attorney's Office, stated that since the 1990 General Plan was adopted in 1971 there have been some changes in the State system and the system now requires that plans be acknowledged. The effect of adoption of this document is that it will become the basic planning document of the city and must be (, followed in deciding land use questions, although not acknowledged by LCDC at e this time. This will require additional justification by staff. .He cautioned that the council is not at the end of this process. Mr. Farah stated that this represents a sound technical document and provides a "trace" of what has happened in the 1 ast four years. Staff recommends that the council adopt the ordinance. He indicated that there may be times the document will need to be defended, but the background information and documentation of public testimony will ease this task. This document represents a series of compromises. Ms. Miller stated that she wants the City and L-COG staffs to know that the council recognizes the effort that they have put in. The staff memo points out the four major areas of disagreement. The positions are clear where there is no agreement. Compromises were in the hope that they would arrive at one single plan. She has some concerns besides those listed on the memo: she feels the land allocations in some areas of the urban growth boundary were very lenient and they may have ended up with a larger allocation than necessary in some instances. She feels that the language may be a problem, as it is not entirely clear. They were unable to reach agreement on some critical areas and that might be why the language is "fuzzy." She feels there are problems out on West 18th Avenue in the natural areas regarding protection of endangered species. They may not have solved that 'problem, but the Fish and Wildlife Service could ( 7/28/80--6 e